Espoused values and assumptions of faculties towards their research practice

beliefs and values) of the university and its practices (i.e. theory-in-use, see also Argyris &

Schön, 1978) signifies effective organisational performance. To the contrary, the disconnection between espoused (and perceived values) and behaviours indicates ineffectiveness. Mainly because they can be aspirations or proposed course of actions of a particular organisation, values can be questioned and challenged. Likewise, the interviewed faculty members, often, questioned the various aspects of the proposed actions, practices and values of the university.

For example, they challenged the fairness and viability of the research guidelines and project monitoring method of the university. A respondent, to this end, commented:

I had been working as a quality assurance head of the College of Natural and Computational Sciences. I was also a member of the university monitoring and evaluation team. While I was in those roles, I had the chance to know that most of the research evaluation criteria and measurement mechanisms do not match with the stated core values of the university. Thus, if we strictly abide by the core values of the university, only a handful of researchers will be eligible to conduct researches. Of course, MU has many excellent researchers. However, they did great not, necessarily, with the help of the core

69

values and research guidelines of the university, but by their unremitting efforts (personal communication, July 15, 2020).

The respondents were also cautious about the attention given to research quantity as an indicator of productivity. They claimed that although the university reiterates research quality as its core value, practically, it focusses on the number of publications than the implications of the research findings. In line with this, the respondents also questioned their espoused values (as professionals). As university professors, they stated, ‘doing quality research’ is their professional integrity. However, despite their aspiration or rationalisation to focus on quality, the aim for quantity (high number of publications regardless of practical values) reigns supreme.

According to the head of the quality assurance office of CSSL, except few, the vast majority of faculty members concentrate on the number of publications and the amount of money they can earn from the research grants (personal communication, July 14, 2020). To this end, there is a divergence between the stipulated espoused values and the research practice. Therefore, the incongruence between the values aspired and the reality on the ground indicates low research performance. The respondents thus contended that it creates confusion on their individual and organisational long-term research goals.

Hence, if organisational values guide the behaviours of employees (Schein, 2004), challenging the research values and norms of the university could mean that faculty members are less committed to the organisational goals. It occurs, often, when the organisational values are abstract and mutually contradictory (Schein, 2004, p. 30). Similarly, as was argued in the other parts of this study (e.g., institutional research emphasis and mission), the respondents reported that the university has ambitions and goals that do not consider the available resources, professional commitment, quality and working habits. For example, a respondent commented:

As a university, we have many ambitious goals. However, we are not working accordingly. There are many issues we should resolve; for example, regarding research conduct, financial management, accessibility of resources and others. Without solving these challenges, it is difficult to narrow the gap between the desired culture and the actual culture and solidify the organisational values (research and community services head, CHS, personal communication, July 20, 2020).

On the other hand, in some respects, espoused values are taken to be latent mechanisms of guiding principles to the faculty. For example, faculty members have informally agreed upon punctuality norms. Research seminars and discussion forums, usually, do not start on time for the fact that lateness is tolerable. Hence, it tells about the underlying assumptions towards the nature of time. Regardless of time is a scarce resource in the research world, here it is flexible and unbridled. According to the university legislation and the 2009 FDRE university proclamation, university teachers must allocate 25% of their working time for research.

However, the respondents reported that only a few faculty members take this rule seriously and adjust their programs accordingly. In that sense, time is fluid. No matter how structured are the work schedules and organisational requirements, they are followed loosely. Breaching punctuality rules is tolerable than losing group cohesion. This polychronic time assumption, according to Schein, would be crucial to solving “complex problems where information is widely scattered” (2004, p. 156) – which defines the Ethiopian context. The strategy, vision and plans of the university also show its assumption about time as an institution – i.e. whether it dwells in the past, focuses on the present or aspires for the future (see also Schein, 2004). In its five-year strategic plan, MU promises to carefully allocate its research resources to priority areas of interest identified as research themes that will have a sound impact on poverty reduction, creation of employment opportunities, economic growth, ensuring good governance

70

and democratisation (MU Strategic Plan (2015/16-2019/20), 2015, p. 6). The university also envisions becoming one of the top 25 universities in Africa by 2025. These instances indicate its aspirations about the future than it dwells in the past and to the present. Its future-orientation might help the university have long-range plans (see also Schein, 2004).

Moreover, individuals’ assumptions about reality influence their overt behaviour (Schein, 2004). As pertinent stakeholders (of their university), faculty members do have taken-for-granted or deeply held assumptions, among other issues, on their research activities and engagement. For example, even though they know that research is an integral part of their profession, for (the interviewed) MU faculty members, teaching is the priority. During formal and informal conversations, in the face of their rationalisations (usually, due to high teaching load and research-unfriendly organisational context), faculty members seemed deeply perceive that teaching effectively is what the university, the government and other pertinent stakeholders (e.g., their colleagues and students) ultimately expect from them. Therefore, the respondents claimed that they and their colleagues accord little attention to their research responsibilities. A respondent, for example, commented:

In terms of teaching-learning and community services, we are doing well. The level of research engagement, however, is negligible. We can argue that the organisational context is not as favourable for research engagement as for other duties. For example, I practice my teaching responsibilities effectively because I believe my professional performance is primarily judged according to my teaching roles (lecturer, Journalism and Communication, personal communication, July 13, 2020).

A study by Berhanu Abera (2018) on five Ethiopian public universities (including MU), similarly, finds that research and academic publishing are considered subsidiary activities to teaching and other activities. Accordingly, faculty members focus on the teaching and learning activities than researching (although the university legislated that publication is the pathway to academic promotion).

The credence that networks and academic ranks as decisive factors to win research grants is the other deeply held assumption of faculty members. Most of the interviewed faculties, particularly those with little or no research experience, assumed that academic profile and personal contacts influence the decision-making concerning research grants. Here, it is vital to note that the assertion that informal relationships influence grant decision-making might leave one with a huge burden of proof. However, the assumption concerning the inflated advantages of high academic rank to earn research grants is not a mere assumption. As a respondent affirmed, previously, the university research guidelines primarily focus on the “richness of applicants’ curriculum vitae” (dean, CNCS, personal communication, July 16, 2020). Hence, to ensure fairness of opportunities, nowadays, there are different research grants categories that accommodate all cohorts (i.e. young, junior and senior) of the faculty member. Yet, the assumption is still intact. It would be because, as Schein (2004) states, values turn out to be taken-for-granted assumptions after they are empirically tested by the groups that they work. In a similar vein, this assumption of the respondents persists (i.e. becomes theory-in-use or guides their behaviour) because young and junior faculty members had, of course, insufficient research opportunities because of their academic ranks.

It is also assumed that joining a group with research experiences increases the chances of winning grants with low-quality proposals than one tries to do it alone with an excellent research proposal. The interviewed junior faculty members assumed that the opportunities for their senior counterparts are always higher; despite the university tries to address the demands of all cohorts. As mentioned above, such an assumption might not occur in a vacuum. Instead,

71

it happens only when organisational members (faculties) develop a certain degree of consensus on “results from repeated success in implementing certain beliefs and values” (Schein, 2004, p.

31). This underlying assumption towards the exiting context, therefore, would have a great bearing on the views of the faculty towards the nature of their activities and the means they choose to achieve their goals. For example, fledgling faculties can focus on creating contacts with people who are supposedly familiar with how the system works to win grants rather than relying on their abilities.

In conclusion, as Schein (2004) discusses, it is natural that the aspirations of an organisation might not be accepted by the members immediately. Hence, for the faculty members to devotedly practice the research principles and guidelines, leaders and the organisation, at large, are expected to prove that their propositions can work reliably. Most importantly, it is crucial to check that the research values and principles are not mere aspirations and reasonably congruent with taken-for-granted or underlying assumptions of the faculty (Schein, 2004).

Also, when we talk about assumptions, the critical point would be that most of the issues the interviewed faculty members took for granted do not seem to be in line with the values and the assumptions that the university stipulated in its different documents. Moreover, the respondents rarely tried to link their assumptions with the essence of the university’s mission. These issues might make the process of nurturing a productive research culture an arduous journey.

72